Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Philosoft · 06-28-2002, 06:41 PM

Kind Bud (Excellent Weed?

),

I am of the opinion that this is not really a free speech issue. Or, if it is in some way, there is no case to be made that free speech is being abridged. Briefly, I don't see how the ruling can affect whether anyone can say "under God" as there doesn't seem to be any way to stop them from doing so. As far as I can see, the strongest condemnation that can be made is that "under God" cannot be a part of an official pledge. Thus, if the ruling should stand, children must be taught a secular pledge but they may add anything they wish to it during any recitations thereafter.

Autonemesis · 06-28-2002, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft:
Kind Bud (Excellent Weed? ),

Whatever could you be talking about? I wonder...

Quote:

Briefly, I don't see how the ruling can affect whether anyone can say "under God" as there doesn't seem to be any way to stop them from doing so. As far as I can see, the strongest condemnation that can be made is that "under God" cannot be a part of an official pledge. Thus, if the ruling should stand, children must be taught a secular pledge but they may add anything they wish to it during any recitations thereafter.

That's another way of looking at it, and I'd not oppose that either, I could easily get jiggy widdit. But since I am a reasonable fellow

, I'm willing to compromise and even allow the "under God" pledge to be taught, so long as participation is voluntary and non-participation is non-discriminatory, and so long as dissent and alternative expressions are not suppressed or punished. How you achieve that, I don't know. And if you can't, then I'm with you, only a secular Pledge should be taught, but there's no way to prohibit the sectarian Pledge from being recited, if people want to. Nor would I want to try.

Philosoft · 06-28-2002, 07:47 PM

Fabulous Cannabis,

Just to clarify, my objection begins at the first Constitutional violation. Thus I think the root of the problem is the 1954 Act of Congress. You reasoning is sound, given a (increasingly likely) situation in which "under God" is maintained in the pledge. I, however naively, maintain it is possible to solve the problem at its root. I just hope I'm not betting on a loser.

Reverend Mykeru · 06-28-2002, 08:14 PM

Kink Bud

Oh, sorry...

Quote:

What is up with that? I use this same alias all over the online world and it never fails, someone always ends up calling me King Bud instead of Kind Bud.

Well, it got me thinking about my priorities. Would I rather be smoking kind bud or king bud?

No offence, but I am going for the king. I've already had the "kind" stuff. I had a housemate who used to grow it in his closet. It sucked.

kingcrim99 · 06-29-2002, 08:44 AM

Quote:

I have to believe that many individuals, namely the erstwhile prez and one senator Byrd, were entirely ignorant of the 1954 Congressional mandate before two days ago.

Byrd actually voted for the 1954 addition to the pledge as a Congressman. Chalk his vociferous opposition to simply being a Cold War relic, not ignorance of that fact.

Spazmatic · 06-29-2002, 12:15 PM

Not all Cold War relics are bad... Just those that have gathered rust.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-28-2002, 06:41 PM	#11
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	Kind Bud (Excellent Weed? ), I am of the opinion that this is not really a free speech issue. Or, if it is in some way, there is no case to be made that free speech is being abridged. Briefly, I don't see how the ruling can affect whether anyone can say "under God" as there doesn't seem to be any way to stop them from doing so. As far as I can see, the strongest condemnation that can be made is that "under God" cannot be a part of an official pledge. Thus, if the ruling should stand, children must be taught a secular pledge but they may add anything they wish to it during any recitations thereafter.

06-28-2002, 07:47 PM	#13
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	Fabulous Cannabis, Just to clarify, my objection begins at the first Constitutional violation. Thus I think the root of the problem is the 1954 Act of Congress. You reasoning is sound, given a (increasingly likely) situation in which "under God" is maintained in the pledge. I, however naively, maintain it is possible to solve the problem at its root. I just hope I'm not betting on a loser.

06-29-2002, 12:15 PM	#16
Spazmatic Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Washington Posts: 55	Not all Cold War relics are bad... Just those that have gathered rust.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.